If an owner were to hate homosexuals, and the choice were either: (a) sublet a shared living space to homosexuals or (b) not sublet at all, the owner would invariably choose the latter, thus denying living space to everyone. But if an owner-occupied exception were granted, the owner could house a heterosexual. This would thus increase overall housing availability to everyone, including the homosexuals who need compete for one less unit of housing in non-owner occupied residences.

Wouldn't that logic apply to non-owner-occupied living spaces as well?

Not really. Non-owner-occupied spaces are usually in other neighborhoods. There's no NIMBY outside of My Back Yard.

I am waiting for a reply to my argument that the tyranny of the minority is worse than the tyranny of the majority.

While I am perfectly willing to accept that the minority needs protections like the defense of the First Amendment in the US Constitution (variations acceptable), what are you willing to offer as a protection to majority rule?

I am waiting for a reply to my argument that the tyranny of the minority is worse than the tyranny of the majority.

While I am perfectly willing to accept that the minority needs protections like the defense of the First Amendment in the US Constitution (variations acceptable), what are you willing to offer as a protection to majority rule?

No stone may be left unturned in the Long March towards our great egalitarian future. Next stop, women on the front lines.

"Declaring that women are equal to men in a combat environment may also correct an issue that has given the Department of Defense a black eye. Dempsey believes that lifting the barrier on women serving in combat may help lessen the frequency of sexual assaults throughout the military."

These people are as immune to logic and basic reasoning as those who think the earth is 20,000 years old.

^ That's probably not egalitarianism gone mad; they probably just need more warm bodies in the field...<cynicism unending>

The American military does not need more warm bodies in the field. This is about getting more women into positions of military leadership, nothing more, and that could be classified as an egalitarian concern. Frankly, though, I don't have much of a problem with it: any woman who joins the military in the first place, is willing to actually serve in combat, and doesn't use "accidental" pregnancy as a deployment dodge (females in the military experience "unintended" pregnancy at a higher rate than the general population) is probably just as fine a fit for military leadership as her average male counterpart anyway.

Wouldn't count on it doing much to reduce rape in the military, though.

But critics worry that genetic data related to IQ could easily be misconstrued—or misused. Research into the science of intelligence has been used in the past "to target particular racial groups or individuals and delegitimize them," said Jeremy Gruber, president of the Council for Responsible Genetics, a watchdog group based in Cambridge, Mass. "I'd be very concerned that the reductionist and deterministic trends that still are very much present in the world of genetics would come to the fore in a project like this."

The Puritan spirit alive and well in Mass.

Quote:

Some critics are wary of the findings being used to promote scientific racism

Scientific Racism! I thought science was good and creationism was bad? Hard to keep up with it all.

Egalitarianism is a revolt against human nature to such an extent that the Clerics of egalitarianism demand human nature not be researched.

A former Conservative Minister was investigated by police for six months after he agreed that a constituent who claims Romany Gipsy heritage was “unkempt”.

Tim Loughton, the ex-Children’s Minister, was interviewed under caution by detectives for 90 minutes last August after he sent a strongly-worded email to Kieran Francis rejecting his complaints about a local council.

...

The Tory MP, who said he had no idea of Mr Francis's traveller background, added: “This has knocked my confidence in the police and made me wonder whether there are certain elements for whom political correctness has become too much of a driving force.

“Because of the merest hint of something to do with racism and the sensitivities about travellers, the police go into overdrive.”

Police launched the investigation after Mr Francis complained about an email in which Mr Loughton said a council official’s description of him as “unkempt” was “eminently accurate”.

Mr Francis said he was disappointed the investigation had been dropped, telling the Mail on Sunday: “What he called me was racist and disrespectful. My mother was from a Romany family and my Member of Parliament basically called me dirty.”

Yes, we can find examples of the right wing being nuts of social media too. The thing with these people is that they're basically mainstream now. And they have zero self-awareness. Everything is about privilege and being gay and "other-kin". Here's a reference guide:

Guy has his dick cut off to become a 'female' and then starts a mma career. After a few fights he discloses that he's a he. He then says the opposition to his being able to fight women as a woman requires "education" (propaganda). He demands to be allowed to fight women as a man pretending to be a woman. He has a 5-0 record. Feminists forced to choose between letting a man beat the hell out of women or accepting that a man who puts feathers up his ass isn't a chicken.

Since the November election, in which President Obama won huge majorities among minority voters, it’s been taken as gospel that the Republican Party must, for its own survival, seek to appeal to those groups by moving to the left on topics such as immigration reform. But as the nation becomes more diverse, the demographic shift can cut the other way, too: Some Democratic voters are likely to move to the right.

xxxx

Consider a straightforward experiment I conducted last year: Over two weeks, I sent pairs of Latino men in their 20s to ride commuter trains in the greater Boston area, often cited as one of the nation’s most liberal regions.

These people were not asked to do anything out of the ordinary, just to wait for the train and ride it. The pairs I sent were native Spanish speakers, so when they spoke to each other, it was probably in Spanish. To gauge other riders’ attitudes about Latinos, I surveyed them before the experiment and two weeks into the tests. In each case, the trains and times were randomly selected and were later compared with a control group of riders on different trains. These trains originated in communities with very few Latino residents, and the men I sent to ride the trains were often the only Latinos at those stations on a day-to-day basis. In this sense, the experiment was testing how people react when a very small group of Latinos moves to a new community.

The results were clear. After coming into contact, for just minutes each day, with two more Latinos than they would otherwise see or interact with, the riders, who were mostly white and liberal, were sharply more opposed to allowing more immigrants into the country and favored returning the children of illegal immigrants to their parents’ home country. It was a stark shift from their pre-experiment interviews, during which they expressed more neutral attitudes.

xxxxxxxx

In a more recent example, the city of Chicago began a massive effort in 2000 to overhaul its public housing. Large and notorious housing projects, such as Cabrini-Green, were demolished, and their residents were relocated. More than 99 percent of the relocated residents were African American. The outcome of the effort was the reverse of my experiment in Boston — rather than coming into contact, groups were separated.

Did that separation result in more liberal political views? Voting patterns among white residents living near these projects before and after their demolition showed that it did. After their African American neighbors left, fewer white residents turned out to vote, and voters became less likely to choose Republican candidates, whom they had previously supported at higher levels than had residents in other parts of the city. It seems that the contact with African Americans had politically mobilized whites in Chicago, similar to how Southern whites were mobilized in the 1930s.

To explore whether there was a similar effect among minority voters, in 2008 I conducted an experiment in which I sent a letter to African American voters just before an election in Los Angeles. The content of the letter was simple: It reminded people to vote and included a map noting how often people on their block voted compared with a nearby block. In some randomly selected cases, the comparison block consisted of African American residents; in others, it was largely Latino. When the letter pointed to a majority-Latino block, African Americans were significantly more likely to vote, suggesting that they were concerned about political competition with Latinos — even though both groups vote overwhelmingly for Democrats.

In that same year, I examined the voting of Latinos in Los Angeles and found that those who lived near predominantly African American neighborhoods were far less likely to vote for Obama than Latinos who lived farther away — suggesting that contact with their African American neighbors may have prompted them to vote against an African American candidate.

As different groups come into contact, people often have adverse reactions, and this can cause them to vote for a party that represents opposition to other groups. In today’s electoral landscape, that might mean white Democrats would be more willing to vote Republican. There is some evidence that when most people vote against their party identification — perhaps as a Reagan Democrat, just once — they return to their regular partisan identity within an election or so. However, if people make that switch during their impressionable years, in their teens or 20s, it can last a long time. ...

None of these findings bode well for Democrats. As ethnic groups mix, voters become more exclusionary and tend to vote for more racially conservative candidates — which may make it more difficult to maintain a diverse Democratic Party and could tilt the field in favor of Republicans.

Proximity to blacks and Hispanics, though not Asians, creates white Republicans (even in the north!). Hispanics living near blacks are less likely to vote for Obama. Blacks living near Hispanics are more likely to vote period (meaning for D).

The Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction runs several programs that heavily emphasize racial issues in public schools.

Some feel that one of those programs – an Americorps operation called VISTA (Volunteers in Service to America) – may go a bit overboard by encouraging white students to wear a white wristband “as a reminder about your (white) privilege.”